I found this paper while going through Stephen
Ames' files.I am
hoping that you will put it out on your E-mail and fax networks. This paper
explains and documents very much. It is absolutely mind blowing !!!!!!

If you place this paper on your E-mail and fax networks I will be more
than happy to respond to people's questions. I have all of the documents
cited in this paper and they are available. This paper will shock even
those who think that they know what has happened and what is now taking
place. The deception is incredible. If the people do not respond to
this information we can then truly say that it is over and that we will
never be free. This paper is not opinion, but it is fact and is all
documented.

Now, what people have to realize is there are remedies for the problems
that not just America faces, but the World. There are people all over the
World that know what is going on and they are doing something about it.
People all over America are emerging victorious over the images in their
minds. Let us not forget the absolute astonishing amount of debt
discharges that have taken place over the last few months. What is happening
in America is unbelievable. People are coming out of the delusions, they have
figured and realized that the United States is a fiction and that it only
exists in our minds. Tens of thousands of people now know that the "United
States" does not exist and that it never has. There is no such thing as the
National debt or a loan from the bank. Has any one ever seen "current credit
money ?" The entire governmental system only exists in your mind.

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:

S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security (
United States of America)
Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At
the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her
Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security
Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf,
is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is
hereby ordered as follows:

"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America)
Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."

Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice
stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to
redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United
States Law.

Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector
of the
Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of
Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain which is the agent for
the Pope, is in charge of the USA 'plantation.'

What people do not know
is that the so called Founding Fathers
and King George were working hand-n-hand to bring the people of America to
there knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a
debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED
STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See
Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

Now, you also have to realize that King George
was not just the King
of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes
at Large 80.

On January 22,
1783 Congress ratified a contract for the
repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from
February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King
money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. Is this not
incredible the King funded both sides of the War. But there was more work
that needed to be done. Now the Articles of Confederation which was declared
in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12 " All bills of credit emitted,
monies borrowed,and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress,
before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present
confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United
States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the
public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."

Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even
though the War was
nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, they
were not done yet.

Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting
was convened in
Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under
the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but
there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the
following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of
Confederation

On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the
meeting to take
place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of
confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did
the people know that the so called founding fathers were acutely going to
reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve
the Constitution.
The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one
who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's
debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. The States were now liable for the debt
owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a
party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote On
August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision
for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S.
Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes
abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look
it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In
this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was
for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This
had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the
debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for
a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to
people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great
Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso
facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional
entity and it is synonymous with subject.

What you think is a state is in reality a
corporation, in other
words, a Person.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic
on this
planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at
law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak
to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction.

Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.

Article six section one keeps the loans
from the King valid it
states; All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Another interesting tidbit
can be found at Article One Section
Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on
the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which
went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because
the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it.

The next underhanded move was the
creation of The United States Bank
in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of
which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States
money in exchange for Securities of the United States

Now the creditors of the United
States which included the King
wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States.
So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The
people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax
which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the
Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off
of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell
you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the floundering
fathers and their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a
Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court
attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is
because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!! If you don't believe
read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah.
14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right
to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the
Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is
not a party to it."

Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One
Section Eight clause
(15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the
Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States.... the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their to
collect our substance.

As you can plainly see all the
Constitution did is set up a Military
Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves.

If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The
Treaty
of Amity, Commerce and Navigation. This Treaty was signed on November 19th,
1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states
that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice
King that he was , he decided that the troops would return to England by June
1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the
King wanted them here.

Here is the key to were this started:

Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the
entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT
SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit:

"Everything in the
Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel.
Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees,
and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire
Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted
the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the
decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of
Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the
entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."

We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the
subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").

Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law
of the Jews
Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71:
pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are
the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the
Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became
the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. The
written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all property
(realty) and today it's called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that
the Jews are owned by Great Britain and the Jews are in charge of the Baking
system.
We
are living under the Babylonian Talmud, it is were all of
our problems come from. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been
enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is
total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things
that do not exist.

Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm
sorry
people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit
in
court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is
true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs.
Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520

You have to understand that Great
Britain,(Article six Section one)
the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you.
Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile
has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell
the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me
and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The
court then says case dismissed. Why ? Because you are not a party to the
contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract
(Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that
you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a
CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why ? Because you are attempting to
infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make
matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights.
You are a mere user of your Masters property! Here are just a couple of
examples:

"The primary control and custody of infant is with the government"
Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62

" Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband,
the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual
so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting
to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to
the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st
Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) You own no Property because you are a
slave. Really you are worse off than a slave because you are also a debtor.

"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute
inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were
instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People.
13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481

Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS
is not an Agency of the United States Government.

All taxpayers have an Individual Master
File which is in code. By
using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking
series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most
taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is
reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in
6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are
considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes
via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K. The form that
is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA-Foreign Investment Real
Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the
IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the
Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved
Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number
1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by
foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309,
Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for
the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads
U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a
payment of a tax to the U.K. Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the
law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax but, it is not in
there because it is not a Tax, it is debt collection through a private
contract called the Constitution of the United States Article Six, Section
One. and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine
gets connected to it's udders ? The answer is no. I have never known a cow
that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing
that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself.
Your labor is measured in current credit money. You are allowed to retain a
small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing shelter and
most of all breed more slaves. Did you ever notice how many of the other
slaves get upset if you try to retain your labor. You are called an
extremist, terrorist and sometimes even a freeman. They say that you are
anti-government. When the truth of the matter is you just don;t want to be a
slave. But, you do not have the right to force others to be free if they want
to be a slave that is entirely up to them. If they want bow down and worship
corporations, let them. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope are not
the problem, it is the other slaves. We would be free if the
want-to-be-slaves were gone. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope
would not even exist, because no one would acknowledge them. I for a matter
of fact, think that those who are in power are also tired of the slaves. All
the slaves do is stand around and MOO!!! For free healthcare, free education,
free housing and they beg those who are in power to disarm them I do agree
that a slave should not have access to a firearm. How can you disagree with
the government passing out birth control ? I hope the breeding of slaves
stops or at the very least slows down.

You see we are cows, the IRS is company who milks the cows and the
United
States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd and Great Britain
is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the
Pope.

Now to Rome.
"Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most
powerfully to
keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their
princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to
sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt
with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with
the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers
join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for
them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the
nations." Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)

If the Sovereign Pontiff should nevertheless, insist on his law being
observed he must be obeyed. Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n.
4. Prati, 1844. Pontifical laws moreover become obligatory without being
accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44. Hence
the jus nationale,(Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws
prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign
Pontiff. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54. So could this be shown
that the Pope rules the world?
The Pope is the ultimate owner of everything in the World. See Treaty
of
1213, Papal Bull of 1455 and 1492.

I could go on and on, this is just the tip of
the iceberg. Don't let
this information scare you because without it you cannot be free, You have
to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your
mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great
Britain and the Vatican are corporations which are nothing but fictional
entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that your
slavery was because you believed a lie.

There are approximately 18 million Mexican immigrants living in the United States today.
Out of that 18 million, it is estimated that 3 million, or nearly 20 percent, are illegal
aliens. Those 18 million Mexicans present a growing threat to Americas
self-determination because many play a dual citizenship role officially encouraged by the
Mexican government. This is no secret; its all in Mexicos official
"National Plan of Development 2001-2006." This shocking document is a five-year
plan full of political rhetoric emphasizing planned improvements for every aspect of
Mexicos infrastructure, but it also lays out specific strategies for expanding the
nations political reach far beyond the US-Mexico border. In other words, Mexico is
systematically trying to cultivate dual loyalties, i.e. disloyalty, among its ethnic
compatriots in America. This is a naked expansion of Mexicos national interest at
the expense of ours; the mystery is why we are tolerating it.

"Globalization" is the buzzword that appears numerous times throughout Mexicos
plan. To achieve that goal, the Mexican government is counting on its citizens living
abroad to strengthen Mexicos influence throughout North America. The Mexican
government is demanding that we give all Mexican illegals a free pass, and also support
them with numerous social services paid for by American taxpayers. Some of these 
like free medical care -- we do not even provide to our own citizens. Mexicos plan
specifically outlines its intent concerning Mexican citizens who have entered the United
States illegally in a subsection titled "Defense Of Mexicans Abroad." The plan
states:

"It is important to note that even if Mexico has achieved a number of agreements and
mechanisms to ensure better treatment of our countrymen abroad, the issue of migration,
especially in the United States, needs a new focus over the long term to permit the
movement and residence of Mexican nationals to be safe, comfortable, legal and orderly,
and the attitude of police persecution of this phenomenon must be abandoned and it must be
perceived as a labor and social phenomenon."

In other words, nothing is illegal and we are not a nation of laws any more, only markets.

In a television interview in 2000, Mexicos President Vincente Fox made his countrys
intentions clear concerning the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere:

"I'm talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada,
the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means
that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will
make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that
border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income."

In other words, his stated long-term goal is the abolition of the border between the US
and Mexico. This is a polite way of saying an end to Americas distinct nationhood,
i.e. to our nationhood, period. We are to be dragged down to the level of the corrupt,
impoverished, backward, crony-capitalist disaster  a nation whose citizens evaluate
quite honestly by fleeing at the rate of millions per decade  on our southern
border.

On the surface, Mexicos globalist vision for economic unity seems innocent, but its
likely to create a very dangerous situation for America. Unlike our nation of mixed
nationalities with various loyalties, Mexicans are extremely nationalistic, and they
usually side with their homeland first on all issues. Considering that Hispanics are now
the largest minority group in America at 12.6 percent, and Mexicans make up half of that
population, the Mexican government is well on its way to wielding significant influence
over U.S. policy by relying on the loyalties of their 18 million dual citizens.

Another disturbing section of Mexicos National Plan concerns the governments
effort to set up illegal immigrants with special identification cards, allowing them to
open bank accounts and acquire drivers licenses anywhere in the United States.
Basically, any Mexican illegal alien can walk into the nearest Mexican consulate with $29
and walk out with a "consulate card". These cards are officially recognized in
Mexico allowing illegal immigrants to operate on both sides of the border. Although the
cards have been available for many years, they have not been officially recognized in
America as proper identification until recently.

In 2001, the reliably-ultraliberal San Francisco combined city and county government
unanimously passed a resolution to accept the consulate card as official personal
identification. Since that first resolution, law enforcement agencies and municipalities
throughout California and other parts of the United States, have also gone on to make
exceptions for illegal Mexicans by accepting the cards. This is the first step toward
making Mexican border jumpers legal by giving them blanket amnesty, something Vincente Fox
has openly called for during immigration talks with the United States.

With a sagging economy and many unrealized campaign promises, Mexicos leader is
fighting for his political life inside what is essentially a third world country. Now,
with his old friend and "Border Buddy" President Bush firmly in tow, Vincente
Fox is pushing for the eventual abolishment of the US-Mexico border. Such easing of border
restrictions would serve as a release valve for the most desperate unemployed Mexicans,
thus relieving Mexicos financial obligation to support its poorest citizens.
Moreover, free movement across the border would allow Mexican workers to earn their money
in the U.S. and spend it back in Mexico.

Just as their national plan dictates, the Fox administration is also encouraging Mexican
immigrants to officially participate in Mexican politics from within the United States. In
2001, Mexico passed a law allowing dual citizenship for any Mexican national living
abroad, legal or otherwise. In addition, Fox visited California several times this year to
campaign for stronger absentee ballot turnouts on behalf of all the Mexican nationals
living in the United States. Their dual citizenship law is a major weapon in Mexicos
battle for a piece of the American political pie, but its only part of an
infiltration campaign that started many years ago.

During the past fifty years, Mexicos dual loyalists have entered every facet of
American society, including many public offices now held by the sons and daughters of
Mexicans who originally entered the United States illegally, just to be redeemed by past
amnesty programs. For decades they have slowly but relentlessly been taking control of
local and state governments throughout the American Southwest. Although these
Mexican-Americans were born and raised in the United States, many of them openly put their
loyalty to Mexico before their loyalty to America. What other ethnic group in America
would we tolerate this from? (When some German-Americans flirted with Hitler in their Bund
organization in the 30s, this so shamed their reputation as an ethnic group that
they are now  despite being the largest ethnic group in America  also one of
the most silent in terms of explicit ethnic self-expression.)

Today, the Mexican loyalists have become a dominating force in American society,
influencing the culture, the language and most importantly, the political process. Thanks
to Mexican-American lobbying efforts, California state representatives now officially
recognize illegal aliens as "undocumented workers" treating them with a laundry
list of special aid programs including free college tuition. Repeat: there are native
Americans who cant afford to go to college, and we are spending taxpayer money to
send criminal migrants. In Texas, the state legislature recently conducted an entire
legislative session in Spanish, and the story barely made the "B. Block" of
local newscasts.

Furthermore, the 2000 presidential campaign proved just how important the Hispanic vote is
to politicians on the national front. From day one of the campaign, then Texas Governor,
George W. Bush, dragged his half Hispanic nephew, George P. Bush to every media event that
might garner a sizable Hispanic audience. The plan worked so well that today George W.
Bush is described in many Latin American circles as "Americas first Hispanic
president" a strange title for a guy who once referred to Mexicos national
language as "Mexican" instead of Spanish.

Indeed, Bushs relationship with Mexico and Vincente Fox goes back long before his
bid for the presidency. The two were Governors at the same time, and they met regularly
over the years concerning various issues including border security, energy production, and
trade policy. Then during Bushs first year as president, he and Fox met four times
to discuss US - Mexican relations. In the fall of 2001, Bush publicly mentioned the
possibility of a new amnesty program for Mexican illegals, but things cooled dramatically
after the 911 attacks. Today however, Bush and Fox are back on the fast track to
negotiating Mexicos plans for economic and political expansion.

After the latest meeting of the US-Mexico Binational Commission (BNC) on November 26, the
U.S. State Department confirmed that cabinet members from both sides signed a number of
important agreements. One agreement that stands out is the "Bilateral Income Tax
Treaty" that amends an existing bilateral income tax treaty between the two nations,
thus allowing significant reductions in taxes on dividends, which officials say "will
further facilitate cross-border trade and investment." If fully ratified by both
nations, this treaty will allow major corporations to invest in either country without
being taxed at home on profits earned from across the border, thus merging our economies
one step beyond NAFTA.

There is no doubt the Latinization of America is well underway, and Mexico is slyly laying
the groundwork that could eventually destroy the security of our southern border.
Furthermore, its no big secret that many Mexicans dream of reclaiming the land lost
to America as a result of the Mexican-American War. Ever since that agreement took effect
in 1845, numerous Mexican government officials have openly called for
"Reconquista," a political plan to recover the land they believe was unjustly
stolen by the American government. Although Mexico has never officially encouraged the
Reconquista movement, they have also never discouraged Mexican citizens (on and off
American soil) from proclaiming its inevitability.

Frankly, the official plan of Mexico is closer to a plan of colonization than it is to a
plan of development. Just as their national plan clearly dictates, the Mexican government
is preparing for an attack on America -- an attack perpetrated through ideology and
assimilation rather than with bullets and blood. The self-hating political correctness of
mainstream Americans, combined with their history-blind confidence that the United States
is a nation invulnerable to territorial loss, continues to aid and abet this aggression.

=======================================================
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil -
is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
=======================================================